11.02
#...
·
 |
|---|
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Well my comment was only specific to star shapes as it relates to tilt. Post processing and alterations people are doing in things like Photoshop is a whole other ball of wax. What I meant by good enough, was the field correction for some can be good enough and they will fix any residual using BXT2. That is my guess as to how the approach will change over the next few years. People will talk less and less about tilt error, not the other way around. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a perfectly flat tilt-free field, and I am not advocating either way for the software approach either. Just observing and thinking through how this will shape up over time. Generally speaking, trends on issues like this tend to take the path of least resistance (and cost) and pressing a button on the BXT2 process, for some, will be the path most travelled. -Bill |
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
| Another perspective here on this, which is a lot of my users who are correcting optics and their tilt aren't doing astrophotography at all.... many are doing astroid hunting with fast optics, while others are doing some photometry work and exoplanet hunting. I would be amazed if people gave up on getting round stars direct from camera.... I sure hope it's a combination of both moving forward. Feel like being good enough with tilt is like saying my scope came from factory in focus and it's good enough, no need for an Electronically Assisted Focuser. |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Josh Jones: I'm not saying they will not use tilt correction devices. I am saying from my perspective they will correct the tilt to a point and let the software fix the residual. Some other cases they will see what they get from the software itself and make a call on what they want to do beyond that point. Either way, the correction done by BXT will definitely impact the tilt game significantly. I don't use a tilt device on my CDK14, and it doesn't need it. So, the focuser analogy doesn't seem quite right. I think electronic focusing devices are substantially more critical than a tilt correction unit is to the operation of any telescope remotely or unassisted. Tilt correction devices still have their place. I shipped out the imaging train recently for my CDK20 in Chile and included a tilt correction device in the configuration. If it's needed, I'd rather not have to send yet another shipment. If it's not, well I have an expensive camera holder. I've talked to a number of imagers there and almost none of them use a tilt correction device. They do all use automated focusing of course. 😉 Bill |
|
2.41
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
What's not right is a CDK20 in Chile  nice setup... love seeing stuff out of this next level equipment. I'm a step above looking through glass coke bottle lenses, need all the help I can get... lol
|
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Josh Jones: I think this new electronic correction device is an interesting idea. I'll be interested in seeing the final revision. Bill |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Agreed. The ability to make these changes electronically would be a vast improvement. Nirvana would be if the software could auto level and auto adjust backfocus. |
|
2.41
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Mark McComiskey: Headed there... built with this type of behavior already in mind software wise. more to come on it though |
